User talk:Beyond My Ken

It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

No paid editing

MOS is not mandatory
(see User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies)

(Life is too short!)

     A HORSE
     (crowd-sourced)

Always do what's best for the encyclopedia

...

Articles that need serious visual work

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)
• Black Sea - a mess

Reminder: to work on

• Flapper - review for writing, order
• A Matter of Life and Death
• Yiddish Theatre District
• This Is Not A Theatre Company
• Hollywood blacklist - re: The Front
• Seven Summits - badly organized
• The Leatherman - copyedit
• Singin' in the Rain - add from Comden & Green intro to script when it's unburied
• Irvington Historic District (Irvington, New York) - further research and expand into sep article, if possible
• Train graveyard - lots of material out there to expand this

For the record...

I would be completely shocked if you were harassing Kintetsubuffalo, and I find myself wondering where the horrible miscommunication/mistake is that caused this conflict to spring up. I've had nothing (that I can recall) but good interactions with you both, and so all this confuses and dismays me more than a little.

But if I can offer you some advice as well: Don't pursue it right now. You clearly aren't going to be listened to by Kintetsu, so anything you say will only aggravate him further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your thinking parallels mine. I've been pondering what to do while I went about my errands today, starting by thinking that I would repost my comment (the one he rather quickly deleted) on my own talk, then moving to asking him to provide evidence or stop making the claim, progressing to talking to an admin -- not for a block or a warning, just so that someone is aware of the situation -- and ended up deciding to do absolutely nothing unless he escalates things. I'll try to avoid him whenever I can, and especially avoid reverts, even of material I think is obviously problematic, in favor of talk page discussion. So that's where I am. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And, BTW, I'm not hounding or harassing or following him, and I don't believe that there is any evidence which would indicate that I am doing so, which makes his surety that I am all the more puzzling to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Mind of adolf hitler cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mind of adolf hitler cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Miller 2015

I asked you about Mike's most recent book, which you told me was not an acceptable single source reference, yet his earlier 2006 book is. I don't understand why you would accept one and not the other, especially as the other has benefited from nine more years of research? I also don't see how you are so sure that Göring met with Mussolini in 1924 because that's what Manvell & Fraenkel said in 1962, but Mike says in 2015 that he didn't. Yet in the very next sentence, which has a reference from Charles R Hamilton: Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich, Volume 1, Göring wrote a letter dated 19.9.1924 speaking about the rebuff. Either he did meet with Mussolini or he didn't. Mike has listed 42 reference works for his section on Göring, is that not enough for you? I also don't see how having two awards deleted amounts to my vandalising the page to be honest.Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We go by the consensus of what most historians say occurred. If one historian says differently, we don't immediately change everything on that basis, we wait to see if the new theory of what happened is accepted by the consensus. A new theory which is not yet accepted is a WP:FRINGE theory: a single source does not an accepted fact make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No one has said that your addition of trivial awards to the Goring page was "vandalism", which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (see WP:VANDALISM). I did say that your continuing to question the editorial consensus regarding it was becoming WP:DISRUPTION. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions: Why do you refer to Mike Miller as "Mike"? Is this someone you know or are connected with? How can you go through 7 years of editing Wikipedia without knowing the very basic stuff you are asking about here and on other talk pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and goodbye

I am sorry if you changed your mind about reviewing my edit request. I judge from your profile that you may not have access too scientific publications online. If that is the case, then perhaps it would be possible for you to visit a university library sometime and have someone help you out. I am not saying this to humiliate you in any way, and I do not expect you to do anything about my edit request, so it is not really about that either. I got curious as to who these hobby scholars could be, and now I know more about that.

Genuine as I try to be here, I will add, with humor, that you are also very arrogant, all of you. Grayfell is the more irritating one, as he is very disingenuous when he argues; your comments are often of much less substance, and so there is little to get upset about.

My last words. Axumtoted (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you felt the need to do a WP:DIVA exit, since those usually only happen with someone who's had a fair amount of experience on Wikipedia, and suddenly feels that they're not appreciated. I'm not sure I've ever seen a newbie with no encyclopedic improvements to their name do a diva dive out the door.

I wish I could say that Wikipedia will miss you, but it really won't: you contributed nothing, so, in all probability, we'll be missing nothing, especially since your vaunted "access to scientific publications" led you to cite unpublished theses, college newspapers, and students' oral presentations as reliable sources we should base the description of a highly controversial organization on. That shows a certain lack of judgment, which is something we really don't need more of around here.

As for "arrogance" -- yeah, I'll cop to a certain amount of that, sure. It stems from 13 years of experience, 230,000 edits, and a fairly deep understanding of the rules, procedures and character of this place. When I look back on my contributions, I can see that I made mistakes, and sometimes may have gone down the wrong path or dug in when I should have conceded, but -- hey! -- I'm a human being, and we all make those kinds of mistakes; hopefully, I've learned from them. What I also see in looking back is a lot of improvements to a lot of articles on a fairly wide variety of subjects, and I'm proud of that. Proud enough that there's really no chance of your making me feel bad with your "it's all your fault" exit, so... mission not accomplished. Maybe you'll have better luck with your next ID. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! EEng 13:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Pictures for Nazi Officials

It has come to my attention that the changes you have applied the same changes to Goering across several other biographical articles about Nazi officials. Are these edits based on a consensus decision? If so, can you provide me with a link directing me to it? Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They are based on the fact that we are an encyclopedia and not a Nazi or neo-Nazi propaganda outlet, and should not glorify Nazis by having their pictures be bigger then they need to be to identify the person. I am quite certain that you are not in favor of glorifying Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I explained before, that is not my intention. However, I think there's a fine line between glorifying Nazism and maintaining some level of conformity among the holders of offices spanning Germany's history. Before our disagreement escalates into an edit war, I was hoping we could reach a compromise.

My main issue with shrinking infobox pictures for figures like Hermann Göring , the President of the Reichstag & Vice-Chancellor) and Joachim von Ribbentrop , the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is that they are part of a long line of officeholders which can be traced back to the German Empire. Consequently, for the sake of maintaining continuity, I think the pictures of such figures should be no smaller (OR bigger) than those previously occupying the same office. With that being said, I have no problem letting you shrink images for Nazis whose offices only existed during Hitler's dictatorship. Just to name a few, this would include:

• Rudolf Hess - Deputy Führer of the Nazi Party
• Martin Bormann - Chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery
• Alfred Rosenberg- Leader of the Foreign Policy Office of the NSDAP
• Joseph Goebbels - Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War & Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
• Philipp Bouhler- Chief of Chancellery of the the Führer of the NSDAP
• Reinhard Heydrich- Deputy Protector of Bohemia & Moravia

Let me know what you think. Thanks for hearing me out.Emiya1980 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Continuity" and "conformity" are extremely poor reasons for glorifying the images of Nazis, which is what you are suggesting, whether you wish to think of it in that manner or not. So Hitler is one of a long line of Reich Chancellors, so what? How many of the previous chancellors was responsible for the death of up to 17 million people, not including those killed in the war Hitler provoked?

I totally reject your apparent contention that Hitler is simply another German Chancellor and should be presented in precisely the same way as the others. We have an obligation to our readers to present the visage of Hitler, but none at all to do so in a way that makes him look dominant and powerful. Nor should we endeavor to choose images that make him look impotent or clownish -- either choice is a violation of NPOV. We should present his image in such as way that it is easily viewable and a good, neutral likeness, but that's the extent of our obligation to the reader.

The same goes for all of Hitler's henchmen, whether they were party officials, collaborating military officers, or those who held ministerial positions. Göring, for instance, was a central figure in the "Aryanization" of German and Austrian businesses, and is not to be forgiven for that simply because he held a ministerial post. I therefore reject "conformity" and "continuity" as acceptable reasons for presenting Nazis of any kind in any but the most basic and utilitarian manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Seeing as how you're unwilling to compromise on the size of the Goering's infobox picture, I am opening a vote on the page's talk page. If you want to share your argument there, you are free to do so.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zionist Organization of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello, please be aware you have been included in a dispute. Please see find the link here: [1]

Thank you for your willingness to improve Wikipedia!Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi BMK, do you know why that references list is appearing on the dispute? The links provided in the dispute do not match the apparent sources. Thanks. Barbarossa139 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

As a reminder, restoring questionably-sourced information to an article when its verification has been challenged can be seen as disruptive editing, as you've done here. I've started a talk page discussion about this problematic sourcing which you should participate in, but I do suggest you self-revert unless you are willing to fully stand by your the edit you made. -- Netoholic @ 13:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Since I just reminded you that the article is under discretionary sanctions in an edit summary and on your talk page, this "tit-for-tat" warning was obviously unnecessary, as the purpose of such a warning is to assure that the warned editor is aware of the discretionary sanctions - and you already knew that I knew that.

As for your other point, your challenge is wrong on its face, as SPLC is a reliable source on hate groups and does not require an additional source, so I will not be self-reverting.

Finally, thanks to your stunt, you are banned from my talk page. Don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Bias

Greetings! You seem intent, over several edits and articles, on exposing my perceived Nazi bias and fighting against my alleged attempts to mitigate Hitler's evils. I am hereby placing you on notice that you are failing to assume good faith about my motives, and verging into uncivil territory and this bias of yours is becoming personal against me. If you persist in this course of accusations then I will have to seek dispute resolution against your behavior. I don't mind if you refuse my edit requests and I don't mind if you refute my policy-based arguments or if you decline to agree with my idea of what belongs in articles. But when you base your disagreements on unfounded fantasies and give voice to scurrilious allegations, I feel duty-bound to defend my good name. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What good name is that? You're just a bunch of numbers, you have no name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You are banned from this page. Do not post here again. Any post will be rolled back without reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you doing?

I didn't change the fucking layout, did I? Seriously, what in the flying fuck is your problem? Restore the MOS:LQ you keep reverting or I'll report this—and nobody's going to buy your obviously false claims that I altered the layout—that was obviously a typo that didn't require reverting everything I fucking did. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Look at the article after you edited it here and compare it to the previous state, here. Do I really need to go through the differences?

You can make your LQ changes -- as unnecessary as they are, since LQ is allowed but not required -- just stop screwing around with the layout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's right—I accidentally deleted a vertical bar which presvented an image from floating left. I just fucking said that, didn't I? Are you doing this just to be belligerent? Restore the fucking MOS:LQ already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"Allowed" but not "required"? The fuck is this horseshit? I never "screwed around with the layout", and you're only making yourself look more and more like you're acting in bad faith by continuing to say so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Cunt, fuck, piss, shit, cocksucker, asshole, bloody, goddamn, son-off-a-bitch, bastard.

There, are all the curses out of the way now? Can we converse like two rational sentient beings?

You made some edits. The only thing I noticed about them is that you changed image positions and sizes. I'm fully prepared to believe that changing the image was inadvertant, but I didn;t know that then. I worked hard on layuing out that page, so I restored that layout, inadvertantly (one for each of us) deleting your LQ edits, which I didn't know about, or care about. You reverted back, and I reverted again. Then you came here and started cursing at me.

I was in the process of reverting back to your version with the LQ changes combined with my version with the layout, but you didn't have the patience to wait for me to do so, as apparently wanted immediate results and you did it yourself, and I edit conflicted with you.

so, are we all good now? You have the LQ changes you want (which, no, are not required, nothing in MOS is required), and I have the layout which best suits the article. Can we go our separate ways and hopefully not interact again, and if we do, perhaps not go off the rails? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"go off the rails"—that's how I'd describe repeatedly autoreverting every edit another editor makes without any plausible explanation. Admitting you didn't know what you were reverting only makes you look worse—especially given you kept doing it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

And the "Bibliography". What are you trying to prove by autoreverting every motherfucking edit I make? You're not even giving a rationale. Are you holding a grudge over something I did or said sometime? Have we had some sort of dispute in the past that you haven't gotten over? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, is it generally your habit to see every difference of opinion as a sign of something deeper than what it appears to be? Such a stance is liable to get you into numerous problems over the course of your editing career. Don't you think that, at least occasionally, it would be a good idea to assume that what you see is what is there. and that it's not a sign that someone is haboring a deep resentment toward you?Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What I see is you editwarring to revert my edits to the article with no rationale and repeated bullshit about how I "screwed with the layout". You seem intent on not answering to this yet keeping my edits out of the article. This is not behaviour I often encounter on Wikipedia. Extraordinary behaviour requires an extraordinary explanation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You can stop now, this discussion is concluded. I;m glad to have finally taken the measure of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa

Hi BMK -- I see that you reverted my deletion of the Beevor comment about the condition of the "famished prisoners" not being able to walk. It still remains a non sequitur observation in my opinion, especially since the mention of starvation in the preceding sentence was tied to the deaths of the Soviet soldiers in Nazi hands and not part of a discussion of POW camp conditions like the lack of sanitation, rampant dysentery, or such things. Just food for thought...--Obenritter (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's possible I was hasty-- I'll take another look at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Cunt, fuck, piss, shit, cocksucker, asshole, bloody, goddamn, son-off-a-bitch, bastard. EEng 02:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

At your cervix. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Dickhead. EEng 02:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That's Mister Dickhead to you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to say . EEng 04:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry: "Fubdub". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That has possibilities, actually, for a new template. Fucked Up Beyond something something something'. Or Forever something. Or Fortunately Unsaid something. EEng 05:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Fucked Up Beyond Divine Un-fucking something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Fucked Up Beyond Divine UnfuckaBility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the handy little book The F Word offers up not only the well-known "SNAFU" and "FUBAR", but also "FUBB" - Fucked Up Beyond Belief, "FUBIO" - Fuck yoU Bub, It's Over, "FIGMO" - Fuck It, Got My Orders, and "FUBIS" - Fuck yoU I'm Shipping out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Any hope for "MIAFUG" - MOS Is A FUcking Guideline, or "MINFUM" - MOS Is Not FUcking Mandatory, or "MINAFUP" - MOS Is Not A FUcking Policy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

{{illm}}

The link to the other language is still there—and much more clearly so. Do you have no experience with {{illm}}? It correctly creates a redlink where there's no article on the English Wikipedia, and makes it clear to the reader that what article there is, is in a different language. The bluelink surprises the reader (who doesn't expect to be taken to a different Wiki, and probably doesn't speak the other language) and does nothing to encourage the turning of redlinks into blue ones (many of us put considerable effort into doing just that). Please see MOS:LINK#Interwiki links, which recommends using this template. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I have little experience with that template, and it seems to me to be less than clear to the reader that the very short (2 or 3 letters) language code is the link, and not the much-more-obvious redlink -- but I see from the template doc that is what the template is supposed to do, which is why I self-reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The Turner Diaries

Cited the relevant page (78) in Turner Diaries. The word "gender" is not in the text. The idea in the book is the System no longer recognizes any legal difference between sexes, which angers Turner as well as feminists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Void138 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Message to Talk Page Stalkers

Would those of you interested in the subject please keep a weather eye on Neo-Nazism? I've grown weary of the shenanigans of the resident tendentious editor there and will be taking a break from monitoring it.

(BTW, FWIW, I'm fine with a consensus of "anti-gay" in the current dispute. I was more annoyed by the ridiculous arguments put forward in favor of it, and by that editor's refusal to follow normal protocols. I cannot speak for any other editor involved, but as someone who -- at times -- has been involved in pro-gay activities, to be told that "homosexual" is essentially a banned word is an extremely annoying bit of political correctness. I'm as liberal as the day is long, but political correctness for the sake of political correctness is something up with which I will not put.)

Anyway, I'm going to keep my blood pressure in check by bypassing the article, so good luck to those who remain to monitor it. And to that particular editor, if you're reading this -- good work, full marks, mission accomplished, at least for a while. Please do keep it up, as the block that will eventually be heading your way will be even longer then, which would be a distinct improvement for Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• BMK, I’m going through a rather hectic time IRL (all good), so I won’t be much use, but I did want to take the opportunity to thank you in general for your work making sure that Wikipedia clearly and accurately describes these groups. It really is a service to the world. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tony, that's really nice of you to say, and I truly appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Interracial marriage

Dear Ken, Now you have deleted my addition to the article Interracial marriage for the second time. The first time you said it was not sourced, so I added a reference to the wikipedia articles Marriage in Israel regarding the situation in Israel and to Religion_in_Lebanon#Current_political_and_religious_issues about Lebanon, but it seems that they do not convince you ? What is the problem? That they are inside wikipedia and you want some outside sources? I find that these wikipedia articles are well-documented (the first one is actually *very* complete). I would be very thankful if you would tell me what was wrong about those sources... please. Or is it in your opinion better to add some newspaper articles (I don't like these so much because you never know it the link will still be active after a few years). Here are a few other possibilities:

Newspaper articles:

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-there-no-civil-marriage-in-israel/
• https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/civil-marriage-in-israel/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/jun/01/middle-eastern-lovers-couples-marrying-cyprus-civil-ceremony

A webpage of a Lebanese lawyer (but I do not think this link will be eternal):

• http://mattarlaw.com/marriage-in-lebanon/#mixed

American Embassy:

• https://il.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/local-resources-of-u-s-citizens/marriage/
• https://lb.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/local-resources-of-u-s-citizens/marriage/

Please tell me if any of these are good for you.

Best wishes Claude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.47.144.213 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Pretty much site with "wiki" in the name fails our reliable sourcing standards.

All of the sources you cite cover interreligious marriage, I didn't see any mention of race. While Jews are both a religion and an ethnicity, those sources either affirm (or at least remain silent) on the prospect of a gentile who has converted to Judaism being allowed to marry a Jewish person. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ok, maybe I agree. My girl-friend is from Lebanon, and in principle I could easily (?) become a Sunni, and then we could probably get married there, so you're right that interracial marriage is quite different from interreligious ones as you can change your faith but not your race. (Then again the article on interracial marriages suddenly speaks about "intercultural marriages", maybe someone could clean up that part. ;) ).

And about Judaism I don't know enough to give any statement. From what I understood reading tonight, the necessary pre-condition to be allowed to convert to Judaism is to be from a family that is at least partially Jewish, so it seems to me that they have a de facto interdiction to "interracial marriages". On the other hand, if a Jew and a Christian want to get married in Israel, I guess that the Jew could just as well get baptized and this way there would not be any formal impediment to the marriage anymore. In any case, I do not know anything about this from a first hand source, so I leave it to somebody else to write about this or to nobody at all.

Best wishes Claude

Assassination or murder?

You reverted of my edit at the William Luther Pierce article on the grounds that “killing for political reasons is assassination.” I'm not smart enough to know which term to apply to the killing of one crazed Nazi lunatic by another — the grandiose "assassination" or the humdrum "murder." I changed "assassination" to "murder" simply because the act is called a “murder”, not an assassination, at the George Lincoln Rockwell article. Heads up: If you feel strongly about it, you should edit George Lincoln Rockwell to call his death an assassination there as well. Chisme (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just whatever you do, don't change the bit about the train [2]. EEng 22:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that about the "making the trains run on time" being false, but it hardly surprises me that it was propaganda and not fact.Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chsime: It appears that the killing happened because the guy was expelled from the party, so it was based on a personal grudge, not a political motive. I've reverted myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)